I'm really not sure what the point of this article is, and I apologize up front if someone is offended by what I am going to say, but it is not my intention to troll here. I'm just saying it how I honestly see it. It seems that the author is proud of himself for finally reaching inner peace with his Linux usage and is looking to show off or find affirmation in others. If you read between the lines, this is really what the author is saying:
"I switched to Linux for no particular reason other than disliking corporate giants like Microsoft. I enjoy using my problem solving skills to overcome basic user interface navigation problems, and I use my wallet to make unheard statements about my distaste for corporate giants like Microsoft by pigeonholing myself into only using specific product brands. Linux really is not so bad, you just have to stop asking yourself how to "make things work" or "be productive"...and instead ask yourself, "are you geek enough to accomplish trivial tasks in a reasonable amount of time?"
It beats me why anybody would even consider using Linux as their primary or sole desktop operating system. Don't get me wrong, Linux has it's place...it's a great cheap alternative for lab computers or servers or academic tinkering, and I hope that people continue to use it as a desktop environment simply because it gives a slight competitive pressure to all other operating systems....but seriously, who wants to be the martyr and take a stand by sacrificing their productivity to deal with an operating system that cannot natively run 99% of software products, has compatibility issues, and bugs up the wazoo due to being a mish-mash of spaghetti code written by unorganized contributors? I just don't get it.
if it were a busy street, the presence of people would have reduced the average light creating visible darkness on the road. there are no dark patches or streaks so it was probably an empty street after all.
Real programmers have evolved on to see in dimly lit caverns typing on the QWERTY keyboard. I have to wear special corrective lenses to see in daylight. I get arthritis just thinking about typing less than 220 WPM, and walking upright may cause a herniated disk.
"At first you might think that a very slow, awkward runner should just walk directly from base to base, except that he'd likely fall down trying to make the sharp turn at first.."
I would like to point something out.
Making a 90 degree turn is physically impossible without coming to a complete stop. If a person immediately applies a force orthogonal to their current velocity, it would not result in a 90 degree turn in the path (but it would probably cause them to fall down). The only way to make a 90 degree turn is to come to a complete stop, then turn, then accelerate in the new direction. There would be no reason for the runner to fall down under these circumstances.
Because our muscles exert a finite amount of force, and force is the time rate of change of momentum, and momentum is mass times velocity, the time required to come to a stop must be proportional to the velocity of the runner.
This confirms the obvious fact that for a walker, the time that it takes to go from walking speed to a full stop is a fraction of a second, and hence there is no measurable time wasted in making a 90 degree turn, and no reason to walk anything other than the shortest path if you are walking.
We know that the optimal path for a faster runner involves some overshooting, and this proves that there is a continuum of optimal paths that is dependent on velocity. It is also clear from Newton's first law, as I showed above, that running faster befits reducing curvature of the path. This applies to any velocity. Thus, in the limit as velocity goes to infinity, curvature becomes ever increasingly important, and hence in the limit the optimal path must be a circle.
I have a feeling the judge was not aware that cell phones are computers, and that all cell phones, and all major personal computer OS's like windows, linux, and Mac contain encryption software.
"Why do we remain in the virtual dark ages, when clearly we have better alternatives readily available?"
Quite simply, it's because the people who know how to beat the current system and get into positions of power know that they are not the same people who would get into power under a different, more fair, system.
If Microsoft can patent the ability to "shut down" a computer, and the ability to have a "user interface with buttons," then why can't they patent the ability to "use a GPU for its stated purpose" ? I'm just wondering how long it will be before Microsoft patents the ability to "use a computer to do computations." Did you know that the concept of "using a hash table to lookup information" has also been patented?
I really love how patents on software and technology are awarded by Lawyer's and secretaries who know nothing about software or technology.
If you have so utterly given up on the hope of ever actually forming a relationship with a female, yet are emotionally dependent on such a relationship to the point where you are willing to entertain the concept of voluntary insanity by trying to convince your mind into thinking that a "virtual girlfriend" is real, then you should just kill yourself.
1) Right. So somebody knocks on your door and says, "Hello, my name is Mike and I live two doors down. I'm legally obligated to inform you that I've got an insatiable urge to lure children into my house and eat their brains. But don't worry, because I'm not allowed to leave your neighborhood."
2) Doesn't matter where you put those GPS devices, criminals will have them removed. You can implant them in their stomach, intestines, brain, testicles, heart...it doesn't matter. Don't bother to think about the human rights violations of doing this to a person. Don't bother to think about the underground scene of "professional" surgeons for performing these removal operations.
...or "legitimate" service through the Internet, as well as any activity or "legitimate" use conducted through the Internet... ----
Isn't the word "legitimate" up for interpretation here? Is porn a legitimate use of the internet? Is copyright infringement a legitimate use? Is spying on your wife a legitimate use? Is preaching scientology a legitimate use? Is preaching Christianity a legitimate use?
A double blind study is to prevent placebo effect as well as experimenter bias. I guess they are worried that the trees might feel compelled to grow more if they were told that there are no radio waves...
1) Did Blizzard ever stop to think that many (most?) people play their games as an ESCAPE from real life?
2) Anything on Blizzard forums goes on Google, and comes up in search results. That means anybody who uses their forums is going to be labeling themselves, forever after, as a nerdy computer game player to future employers, dates, etc...which is not something that is looked upon positively by many people. I would certainly discriminate against potential employees if I saw that they were a WoW geek.
3) People sometimes have bad days, say things they regret later...on a forum this is all saved forever. Luckily only the people who know their forum name can find it. So you protect your hidden identities more securely than you protect your email passwords. Blizzard aims to make all those mistakes unforgivable.
There is nothing that is possibly worth saying on the Blizzard forums that is worth sacrificing one's anonymity for.
Just looking at the pictures one can plainly see a string of sharp edged depressions (or pits) having a shadow on the left rim. The circled area of this image is simply another one of those depressions which happens to be slightly smaller in diameter than the width of the shadow. It is therefore obvious that this is just another one of those depressions. In order to be a cave it would need to travel UNDERNEATH the ground.
Instead of trying to plug it why don't you just send thousands of boats to start harvesting the leaking oil.
If they send enough boats then they should be able to clean faster than it leaks, right? Hence cleaning up the spill, and simultaneously getting useful oil. At the very least, it will limit the amount of oil that pollutes the environment in comparison to standing around like a bunch of idiots scratching our heads.
Faster performance is a luxury we don't really need. We only have applications demanding higher performance because it's available. There might possibly be a niche role for this in dedicated hardware for exploring certain computational problems, such as protein folding or monte carlo simulations or whatever, but not in our home computers.
This game only costs person hours if that time would have been spent towards labor if the game didn't exist.
People find distractions all throughout their daily lives, and it is silly to think that the existence of 1 more distraction is going to make a difference. Those people who felt like working kept working, and those people who were looking for a distraction found one, but they would have found one anyway.
This is not a "bone for privacy advocates." It's a tiny, insignificant little thing that changes nothing and barely warrants an update on the Facebook site. So why do all these trivial little details become Slashdot news worthy?
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that Slashdot does keep me up to date with the more critical Facebook changes, but I find it a bit pathetic that Slashdot users feel the need to use the news literaly as a changelog for Facebook.
I think a lot of people are angry. At this point a lot of people are revolting by using fake names, or putting less info in their profile. But you can't really leave it yet because the social connections it provides are useful even if you hate it. I think that people are just waiting for something better to come along, and when that thing comes, it will give Facebook a run for its money and force them to either change their ways or lose the battle. Remember when Facebook took over myspace? The same can happen again.
Or the consoles themselves could simply have a solid state internal hard drive for buffering. It could easily be the case in 10 years that the console could be equipped with a 1 TB solid state hard drive and all games are just copied onto this when you first load it.
The university degree is a measure of competence not on attendance. You can still test out of many classes at an accredited university without needing to enroll at all. Moreover many classes can be taken online. Many professors most their material online and do nothing more than present the material in the textbook in class, so if a student doesn't feel it is a good use of time to go to class, they shouldn't have to go.
These kinds of standards have set a precedent that does NOT include attendance. The university does not care.
The people that are bothered the most are teachers, because teachers don't like to lecture to an empty classroom, and because they know that students who skip are usually the ones who fail. Teachers don't like to give out failing grades because it reflects badly on them, and also because it disrespects them to not show up to their classes.
I would feel violated to carry around a tracking device. If they want a more efficient electronic means of measuring attendance then I think having a card to swipe in (like a business) would be much less controversial.
Jason Chilton's explanation of being told that he needed to determine the verdict based on letter-of-the-law interpretation is false.
Jury nullification is the right of a juror to disagree with the constitutionality of the law, and apparently Chilton was deceived into thinking he did not have this right.
Mention the right of a jury to "veto." If actually selected to be on a jury, you are likely to be asked to swear to find a verdict solely on the basis of the facts presented in court. Decline to swear this on the grounds that the jury has a right to find a verdict as they see fit. This right is called "jury nullification." In short, it allows a jury to return a verdict of "innocent" when the accused is clearly guilty, because the jury disagrees with the law that was broken. You probably want to read up on this before your jury duty. This is a right held by the juror and affirmed by the Supreme Court, but one that both prosecutors and judges usually deeply loathe, if they even acknowledge its existence. You will almost certainly be excused from the jury for holding unacceptable views, but if not, you will be better prepared for the experience from your research.
* Judges who says to jurors that, "you will be required to follow and apply this law regardless of whether it seems just or not", might be asked if they would exercise this rule against Harriet Tubman (1820-1913), who violated the federal Fugitive Slave Laws by participating in the Underground Railroad for escaped slaves, or against Rosa Parks (b.1913), who was arrested in 1955 for violating the segregation laws in Montgomery, Alabama, by refusing to move to the back of the bus when the bus driver told her to give up her seat to a white passenger. If a judge bites the bullet and says that, yes, he would have to instruct juries to convict these women because the law is the law, he might be told that such blind obedience was not accepted as a defense during the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg, when many Nazis claimed that they were just "following orders." A judge who participates in injustices because he is "following orders" might be similarly called to account.
* The late Justice William C. Goodloe (1919-1997) of the Washington State Supreme Court, an advocate of jury nullification, suggested that the following instruction be given by judges to all juries in criminal cases: "You are instructed that this being a criminal case you are the exclusive judges of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, and you have a right also to determine the law in the case. The court does not intend to express any opinion concerning the weight of the evidence, but it is the duty of the court to advise you as to the law, and it is your duty to consider the instructions of the court; yet in your decision upon the merits of the case you have a right to determine for yourselves the law as well as the facts by which your verdict shall be governed."
I have googled and read a dozen articles about Terry Childs and still cannot find a single article that actually explains what he has done wrong and what this means.
So far, all I can tell is that Terry Childs refused to give out passwords (private information) to somebody else who asked for those passwords. What is illegal about protecting the privacy of your users? How is this in any way related to denial of service or cyber crime?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really not sure what the point of this article is, and I apologize up front if someone is offended by what I am going to say, but it is not my intention to troll here. I'm just saying it how I honestly see it. It seems that the author is proud of himself for finally reaching inner peace with his Linux usage and is looking to show off or find affirmation in others. If you read between the lines, this is really what the author is saying:
"I switched to Linux for no particular reason other than disliking corporate giants like Microsoft. I enjoy using my problem solving skills to overcome basic user interface navigation problems, and I use my wallet to make unheard statements about my distaste for corporate giants like Microsoft by pigeonholing myself into only using specific product brands. Linux really is not so bad, you just have to stop asking yourself how to "make things work" or "be productive"...and instead ask yourself, "are you geek enough to accomplish trivial tasks in a reasonable amount of time?"
It beats me why anybody would even consider using Linux as their primary or sole desktop operating system. Don't get me wrong, Linux has it's place...it's a great cheap alternative for lab computers or servers or academic tinkering, and I hope that people continue to use it as a desktop environment simply because it gives a slight competitive pressure to all other operating systems....but seriously, who wants to be the martyr and take a stand by sacrificing their productivity to deal with an operating system that cannot natively run 99% of software products, has compatibility issues, and bugs up the wazoo due to being a mish-mash of spaghetti code written by unorganized contributors? I just don't get it.
if it were a busy street, the presence of people would have reduced the average light creating visible darkness on the road. there are no dark patches or streaks so it was probably an empty street after all.
Real programmers have evolved on to see in dimly lit caverns typing on the QWERTY keyboard. I have to wear special corrective lenses to see in daylight. I get arthritis just thinking about typing less than 220 WPM, and walking upright may cause a herniated disk.
"At first you might think that a very slow, awkward runner should just walk directly from base to base, except that he'd likely fall down trying to make the sharp turn at first.."
I would like to point something out.
Making a 90 degree turn is physically impossible without coming to a complete stop. If a person immediately applies a force orthogonal to their current velocity, it would not result in a 90 degree turn in the path (but it would probably cause them to fall down). The only way to make a 90 degree turn is to come to a complete stop, then turn, then accelerate in the new direction. There would be no reason for the runner to fall down under these circumstances.
Because our muscles exert a finite amount of force, and force is the time rate of change of momentum, and momentum is mass times velocity, the time required to come to a stop must be proportional to the velocity of the runner.
This confirms the obvious fact that for a walker, the time that it takes to go from walking speed to a full stop is a fraction of a second, and hence there is no measurable time wasted in making a 90 degree turn, and no reason to walk anything other than the shortest path if you are walking.
We know that the optimal path for a faster runner involves some overshooting, and this proves that there is a continuum of optimal paths that is dependent on velocity. It is also clear from Newton's first law, as I showed above, that running faster befits reducing curvature of the path. This applies to any velocity. Thus, in the limit as velocity goes to infinity, curvature becomes ever increasingly important, and hence in the limit the optimal path must be a circle.
I have a feeling the judge was not aware that cell phones are computers, and that all cell phones, and all major personal computer OS's like windows, linux, and Mac contain encryption software.
"Why do we remain in the virtual dark ages, when clearly we have better alternatives readily available?"
Quite simply, it's because the people who know how to beat the current system and get into positions of power know that they are not the same people who would get into power under a different, more fair, system.
If Microsoft can patent the ability to "shut down" a computer, and the ability to have a "user interface with buttons," then why can't they patent the ability to "use a GPU for its stated purpose" ? I'm just wondering how long it will be before Microsoft patents the ability to "use a computer to do computations." Did you know that the concept of "using a hash table to lookup information" has also been patented?
I really love how patents on software and technology are awarded by Lawyer's and secretaries who know nothing about software or technology.
I can see this being used to interrogate POWs!
If you have so utterly given up on the hope of ever actually forming a relationship with a female, yet are emotionally dependent on such a relationship to the point where you are willing to entertain the concept of voluntary insanity by trying to convince your mind into thinking that a "virtual girlfriend" is real, then you should just kill yourself.
1) Right. So somebody knocks on your door and says, "Hello, my name is Mike and I live two doors down. I'm legally obligated to inform you that I've got an insatiable urge to lure children into my house and eat their brains. But don't worry, because I'm not allowed to leave your neighborhood."
2) Doesn't matter where you put those GPS devices, criminals will have them removed. You can implant them in their stomach, intestines, brain, testicles, heart...it doesn't matter. Don't bother to think about the human rights violations of doing this to a person. Don't bother to think about the underground scene of "professional" surgeons for performing these removal operations.
Great, robotic birds land on the power lines and run up your electric bill.
...or "legitimate" service through the Internet, as well as any activity or "legitimate" use conducted through the Internet...
----
Isn't the word "legitimate" up for interpretation here? Is porn a legitimate use of the internet? Is copyright infringement a legitimate use? Is spying on your wife a legitimate use? Is preaching scientology a legitimate use? Is preaching Christianity a legitimate use?
I thought analog TV was turned off a long time ago...guess I was wrong!
A double blind study is to prevent placebo effect as well as experimenter bias. I guess they are worried that the trees might feel compelled to grow more if they were told that there are no radio waves...
1) Did Blizzard ever stop to think that many (most?) people play their games as an ESCAPE from real life?
2) Anything on Blizzard forums goes on Google, and comes up in search results. That means anybody who uses their forums is going to be labeling themselves, forever after, as a nerdy computer game player to future employers, dates, etc...which is not something that is looked upon positively by many people. I would certainly discriminate against potential employees if I saw that they were a WoW geek.
3) People sometimes have bad days, say things they regret later...on a forum this is all saved forever. Luckily only the people who know their forum name can find it. So you protect your hidden identities more securely than you protect your email passwords. Blizzard aims to make all those mistakes unforgivable.
There is nothing that is possibly worth saying on the Blizzard forums that is worth sacrificing one's anonymity for.
Just looking at the pictures one can plainly see a string of sharp edged depressions (or pits) having a shadow on the left rim. The circled area of this image is simply another one of those depressions which happens to be slightly smaller in diameter than the width of the shadow. It is therefore obvious that this is just another one of those depressions. In order to be a cave it would need to travel UNDERNEATH the ground.
Instead of trying to plug it why don't you just send thousands of boats to start harvesting the leaking oil.
If they send enough boats then they should be able to clean faster than it leaks, right? Hence cleaning up the spill, and simultaneously getting useful oil. At the very least, it will limit the amount of oil that pollutes the environment in comparison to standing around like a bunch of idiots scratching our heads.
Action, people!
Faster performance is a luxury we don't really need. We only have applications demanding higher performance because it's available. There might possibly be a niche role for this in dedicated hardware for exploring certain computational problems, such as protein folding or monte carlo simulations or whatever, but not in our home computers.
This game only costs person hours if that time would have been spent towards labor if the game didn't exist.
People find distractions all throughout their daily lives, and it is silly to think that the existence of 1 more distraction is going to make a difference. Those people who felt like working kept working, and those people who were looking for a distraction found one, but they would have found one anyway.
This is not a "bone for privacy advocates." It's a tiny, insignificant little thing that changes nothing and barely warrants an update on the Facebook site. So why do all these trivial little details become Slashdot news worthy?
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that Slashdot does keep me up to date with the more critical Facebook changes, but I find it a bit pathetic that Slashdot users feel the need to use the news literaly as a changelog for Facebook.
I think a lot of people are angry. At this point a lot of people are revolting by using fake names, or putting less info in their profile. But you can't really leave it yet because the social connections it provides are useful even if you hate it. I think that people are just waiting for something better to come along, and when that thing comes, it will give Facebook a run for its money and force them to either change their ways or lose the battle. Remember when Facebook took over myspace? The same can happen again.
Or the consoles themselves could simply have a solid state internal hard drive for buffering. It could easily be the case in 10 years that the console could be equipped with a 1 TB solid state hard drive and all games are just copied onto this when you first load it.
The university degree is a measure of competence not on attendance. You can still test out of many classes at an accredited university without needing to enroll at all. Moreover many classes can be taken online. Many professors most their material online and do nothing more than present the material in the textbook in class, so if a student doesn't feel it is a good use of time to go to class, they shouldn't have to go.
These kinds of standards have set a precedent that does NOT include attendance. The university does not care.
The people that are bothered the most are teachers, because teachers don't like to lecture to an empty classroom, and because they know that students who skip are usually the ones who fail. Teachers don't like to give out failing grades because it reflects badly on them, and also because it disrespects them to not show up to their classes.
I would feel violated to carry around a tracking device. If they want a more efficient electronic means of measuring attendance then I think having a card to swipe in (like a business) would be much less controversial.
Jason Chilton's explanation of being told that he needed to determine the verdict based on letter-of-the-law interpretation is false.
Jury nullification is the right of a juror to disagree with the constitutionality of the law, and apparently Chilton was deceived into thinking he did not have this right.
Therefore, I think this is a mistrial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Mention the right of a jury to "veto." If actually selected to be on a jury, you are likely to be asked to swear to find a verdict solely on the basis of the facts presented in court. Decline to swear this on the grounds that the jury has a right to find a verdict as they see fit. This right is called "jury nullification." In short, it allows a jury to return a verdict of "innocent" when the accused is clearly guilty, because the jury disagrees with the law that was broken. You probably want to read up on this before your jury duty. This is a right held by the juror and affirmed by the Supreme Court, but one that both prosecutors and judges usually deeply loathe, if they even acknowledge its existence. You will almost certainly be excused from the jury for holding unacceptable views, but if not, you will be better prepared for the experience from your research.
* Judges who says to jurors that, "you will be required to follow and apply this law regardless of whether it seems just or not", might be asked if they would exercise this rule against Harriet Tubman (1820-1913), who violated the federal Fugitive Slave Laws by participating in the Underground Railroad for escaped slaves, or against Rosa Parks (b.1913), who was arrested in 1955 for violating the segregation laws in Montgomery, Alabama, by refusing to move to the back of the bus when the bus driver told her to give up her seat to a white passenger. If a judge bites the bullet and says that, yes, he would have to instruct juries to convict these women because the law is the law, he might be told that such blind obedience was not accepted as a defense during the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg, when many Nazis claimed that they were just "following orders." A judge who participates in injustices because he is "following orders" might be similarly called to account.
* The late Justice William C. Goodloe (1919-1997) of the Washington State Supreme Court, an advocate of jury nullification, suggested that the following instruction be given by judges to all juries in criminal cases: "You are instructed that this being a criminal case you are the exclusive judges of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, and you have a right also to determine the law in the case. The court does not intend to express any opinion concerning the weight of the evidence, but it is the duty of the court to advise you as to the law, and it is your duty to consider the instructions of the court; yet in your decision upon the merits of the case you have a right to determine for yourselves the law as well as the facts by which your verdict shall be governed."
I have googled and read a dozen articles about Terry Childs and still cannot find a single article that actually explains what he has done wrong and what this means.
So far, all I can tell is that Terry Childs refused to give out passwords (private information) to somebody else who asked for those passwords. What is illegal about protecting the privacy of your users? How is this in any way related to denial of service or cyber crime?